Privacy

650 readers

1 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

447

Indiana police have dogs that sniff specifically for cash at the US’s 2nd biggest FedEx hub, then they simply keep the money (eu.indystar.com)

submitted 2 months ago by activistPnk@slrpnk.net to c/privacy@sopuli.xyz

104 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/13145612

(edit) Would someone please ship some counterfeit money through there and get it confiscated, so the police can then be investigated for spending counterfeit money?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Djtecha@lemm.ee 51 points 2 months ago (2 children)

So people should sue FedEx and let FedEx either stop transporting through the state or sue the state with those deep pockets. Or idk maybe the doj should fucking take this up as they are now fucking with interstate commerce and committing felonies as a state.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The institute for justice FIRE and a couple other major civil rights organizations have been working working on getting civil forfeiture over turned and made unconstitutional for decades now

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

for decades now

When obvious criminal activity requires decades to solve you should kind of take the hint...

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I take it you have never been involved in the legal system

[–] Djtecha@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yea it's taking too long

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Conservatives love civil asset forfeiture. They will fight like hell to keep it.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

IIRC, New Mexico banned civil forfeiture. But the cops kept doing it anyway. So a law change is not enough... enforcement is also needed. Yes, against the police, sadly enough.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

They can still perform asset forfeiture if they believe there is criminal probability. So they only need to have weak evidence criminal activity is at issue, to search, and confiscate things. Since this is the majority of what they did already, it didn't do too much. This was mostly an attempt, by the state DA, to get ahead of the movement against asset forfeiture. A way for them to keep doing what they are doing, while paying lip service to civil rights. However their argument didn't work as all forms of asset forfeiture are in the sights. They hoped having more cause, and a stricter documentation, would give them the leeway needed, but the case being brought is that if the item isn't specifically evidence, it can't be seized, if it is evidence it can't kept, or there are other laws determining what is to be done when a conviction is had. So FIRE has said while it is nice it is a little more strict there, it is in no way outside of the scope of their lawsuits.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago

I’ve been boycotting FedEx for over a decade. Not for this reason but for the other reasons I mention in this thread.

It’s quite hard because many sellers do not disclose who they use for shipping. I can sometimes add a comment to my order saying “Do not use FedEx. If that’s the only option then cancel my order.” This makes online shopping tedious, so I’ve been driven to just shop locally.